Holacracy originated as connections in the organization, to be precise between the holons, which means ‘whole’ in Greek, implying they are units of members, who can independently but are non-existent without the organization (Koestler, 1967). Corporate governance directs and controls a firm, immersing the stakeholder interests.

Corporate governance is a framework to attain company objectives, encompassing every sphere of management action plans and performance metrics, inclusive of the structural, and procedural processes and practices. Lack of corporate governance evokes a dubiousness, on the strategy, risk, compensation, ethical behavior, and awareness of the firm’s profitability and operations, and vagueness on responsibility, transparency, fairness, and accountability. That being so, holacracy is a chassis for corporate governance, wherein a group of people, or members, form a distinct autonomous group, that is symbiotic in nature for task accomplishment and goal fulfillment of the firm. The beauty of holacracy is that it is a fluid structure, wherein the hierarchy is repudiated, and the members of the group have the autonomy of decision-making within their boundaries.

Leadership in a holacracy is not subjective to the traditional hierarchy, but that of self-management, leveraging multiple roles and associations, for accountabilities of the particular domain, with a purpose, sans a static job description. Holacracy provides the broad authority of roles with responsible leadership, with problem-solving at governance meetings periodically.

The main differentiator of holacracy is the absence of a rigid commanding structure, the presence of flexible roles, and an extensive span of authority with the specificity of responsive behavior. If the traditional structure was pyramid-shaped, holacracy exhibits nested circles in series or sets and subsets, displaying autonomy in each series. Supreme skills and graceful fluidity give individuals the opportunity for several roles that are purpose-driven and inclusive of one or many domains. As might be expected, the leader of the firm may hold the helm of affairs in one team and be an auxiliary in another team. The golden rule of holacracy is in sync with the chain of command of the firm, in it that, it clearly defines the boundary, with role clarity that, the leader in any team can accomplish the role with full authority and make decisions or act accordingly, provided, there is no policy against the same [1]. Be that as it may, this chassis enables team members more autonomy over the processes since the traditional top-down approach does not micromanage and limits autonomy. In the early 2000s, the concept of holacracy and its dynamics developed widely [2], after which the holacracy constitution was published [3]. The cornerstone of practicing holacracy is that an organization can be constitutionalized as a whole or unit by unit [4]. The constitution preamble defines the canister of roles and policies on the fulcrum of common goals and purposes as a ‘circle’. Needless to say that each circle encompasses the policies and roles to act in ‘governance’ [5].

The relentless advancement or meritocracy of holacracy is that it focuses on the work itself rather than the people behind it. In many constitutions, over some time, the title transmigrates to an individual’s identity and self-esteem, often personalizing the work role, and changing strategies to be in the changing perspective per se. This aspect is not seen in holacracy since one role is not a monopoly, and team members are ushered into various job roles based on their skills, and interests based on the needs of the organization to identify the job to the job role and to accomplish the vision and mission. This concept is liberating for individual contribution, recognition, and engagement in multiple ways in the changing and agile environment.